Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Yigal Levin <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>]

Shoshanna,

I agree with you. But that's just the problem. Since we don't know when 
Hazal intended their midrashim to be taken literally and when they did not, 
our deciding to accept one statement as "accurate" and another as "not" is 
just that: our decision, based on our own interpretation, based on our own 
biases. Which, in practice, makes using ANY midrashim as historical evidence 
impossible.

For example, you state that "I do believe that when the midrash identified 
someone, it was not made up". What is your eveidence for this? Why do you 
think that personal identifications are more or less "historically accurate" 
than any other type of "information" in the midrash?

Also, your use of the term "made up" is problematic. You make it sound like 
an either/or issue: one either accepts all the midrashim as "accurate", or 
one discards them. This is a false representation. As you wrote, SOME of the 
midrashim were NOT meant to be taken historically - are these midrashim to 
be discarded? Of course not. The midrashim have an important place in the 
conveying of Hazal's thought and teachings. They are an important part of 
Jewish learning. However, Hazal were NOT historians, and they did not intend 
their midrashim to be taken as "history". And we should not read them as 
such. If Hazal identified Chedorlaomer as Elam, we should be asking "what 
did they intend by this?", not assuming that we have hereby solved a 
"historical" problem.

Yigal Levin

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
To: <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 6:23 AM
Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] "Shinar" at Genesis 14: 1 Is Not "Sumer", Part I


> I said that we will never know about all of it, which is true, which
> is an exaggeration, etc. (Although I do believe that when the midrash
> identified someone, it was not made up.)  Except for the people who
> believe it was all just made up, they are the ones who "know" that
> none of it was accurate.  It's easier just to discard it all.
>
> Shoshanna Walker
>
>
> > Dear Shoshanna,
> >
> > What is your criterion for telling which parts are "exaggeration and not
> > entirely accurate" and which parts are accurate? Or when Hazal intended 
> > the
> > midrash to be taken literally and when they intended it to be understood
> > allegorically?
> >
> >
> >
> > And please remember to use your full name.
> >
> >
> > Yigal Levin
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
> > To: "Yigal Levin" <leviny1 AT mail.biu.ac.il>
> > Cc: "b-hebrew" <b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org>
> > Sent: Monday, February 04, 2008 4:49 AM
> > Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] "Shinar" at Genesis 14: 1 Is Not "Sumer", Part I
> >
> >
> > > Your point of view is only viable if one regards the midrash as a work 
> > > of
> > > literature, composed by various authors, out of their imaginations. 
> > > That
> > > is incompatible with my point of view, that the Midrash is a recording 
> > > of
> > > what was "popular knowledge" handed down through the generations.  Some 
> > > of
> > > it could have been exaggeration, and not entirely accurate, but some of 
> > > it
> > > was also probably very true.  We, alas, on this forum, will never know
> > > which was which, except for those of you who believe it was ALL just a
> > > fabrication - for you none of it is actually true.
> > >
> > > Shoshanna
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > The "midrash" was possibly seeing  $IN(AR as consisting of $IN, 'two,
> > > different' and (AR 'river', Y)OR or NAHAR. Thus $IN(AR = the land of
> > > the $NEI Y)OR-IM. Another midrash may see (AR as standing for (IR, )
> > > UR, 'city, people, throng'. Still another midrash may see $IN as
> > > standing for 'tooth' and (AR being a contracted HAR, 'mountain',
> > > ect., ect. Likewise for the -er of Sumer, the land of the big, (ACUM,
> > > Aryans.
> > > Isaac Fried, Boston University
> > > On Feb 3, 2008, at 2:45 AM, Yigal Levin wrote:
> > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Shoshanna Walker" <rosewalk AT concentric.net>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Shinar is Babylon
> > > >
> > > > Probably correct in a general sense, but on what do you base this
> > > > statement?
> > > >
> > > > > The Midrash identifies Chedorlaomer as Elom son of Shem son of Noah
> > > > Which Midrash? Do you have a source?
> > > >
> > > > You really should read Maharal on midrashim.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Shoshanna
> > > >
> > > > And please remember to use your full name.
> > > >
> > > > Yigal Levin
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > b-hebrew mailing list
> > > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > No virus found in this incoming message.
> > > Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database:
> > > 269.19.16/1250 - Release Date: 29/01/2008 22:20
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > b-hebrew mailing list
> > b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> > http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
> _______________________________________________
> b-hebrew mailing list
> b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.5.516 / Virus Database: 269.19.16/1250 - Release Date: 
> 29/01/2008 22:20